Month: May 2018

James Bovard has this article about the criminal sexual gropers, assaulters and rapists of the TSA. Bovard says that the TSA now has a watchlist of the names of anyone who has complained about being groped, sexually assaulted, or raped by the neanderthals of the TSA.

The TSA has a very loose definition of troublemakers to put on the list. As Bovard notes, “Anyone who has ever ‘loitered’ near a checkpoint could also make the list. So could any woman who pushes a screener’s hands away from her breasts.” Sick.

The TSA says that there were 34 assaults against its screeners last year, even though what the screeners actually do is assaulting innocent, paying customers! Millions of them! It is a sick, totalitarian agency that should have been abolished and not even created in the first place.

Bovard also writes:

The watchlist would seem less perilous if the TSA were not one of most incompetent agencies on Earth. After a series of undercover tests at multiple airports across the country, the Department of Homeland Security concluded last year that TSA officers and equipment had failed to detect mock threats roughly 80% of the time. (In Minneapolis, an undercover team succeeded in smuggling weapons and mock bombs past airport screeners 95% of the time.) An earlier DHS investigation found the TSA utterly unable to detect weapons, fake explosives and other contraband, regardless of how extensive its pat-downs were.

It is “security theater.” There is no good reason to put people through such an invasive procedure just to go visit Grandma or have a business meeting. But when the gubmint is empowered especially after its 9/11 to impose even more of a police state that existed prior to 9/11, the gullible sheeple believe the bureaucrats’ rationale of “molesting you to keep you safe,” which it is obviously not doing.

Naomi Wolf in 2012 wrote about how the U.S. government uses sexual humiliation as a political tool to control the masses. And that is beyond the TSA, but pervading law enforcement arrest and strip-search procedures and Gitmo prisoner abuses. Wolf wrote,

I interviewed the equivalent of TSA workers in Britain and found that the genital groping that is obligatory in the US is illegal in Britain. I believe that the genital groping policy in America, too, is designed to psychologically habituate US citizens to a condition in which they are demeaned and sexually intruded upon by the state – at any moment.

While there have been lawsuits against the TSA in these 16+ years now since the molestation racket began, it is a shame that more people haven’t insisted that someone who has literally molested them and searched underneath their clothing be criminally charged with assault, sexual assault, as well as violating their Fourth Amendment rights.

Some people say,”well you chose to fly and these are the rules,” but people have a right to freedom of movement and to travel, and this TSA is not a private sector agency in which the people (the paying customers) have a “choice,” but a government agency, in which its “workers” are obligated to obey the Constitution of the United States of America. Sadly, if the TSA “workers” were arrested and charged criminally, they might want to claim “immunity,” and say they were “just following orders.” But so did the Nazis at Nuremberg.

The TSA agents swear an oath similar to military and other government employees: “I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

No, their molesting and assaults are not protecting airline customers “against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Their molesting and assaults are violating the Constitution that they swore an oath to obey, which includes its Fourth Amendment!

So TSA employees really are obligated to obey their oath, and that means not violating the Fourth Amendment, which reads: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

All people have a right to be secure in their persons. And that means their persons will not be searched without a reason to suspect them of something criminal. In the case of the TSA for 16+ years, the TSA molesters and assaulters are the real criminals here. They are literally criminals.

It should be of no surprise that the criminal TSA racket has a “watchlist” of its victims who complain about being criminally molested and assaulted, and illegally searched without cause or suspicion.

Law Professor Jonathan Turley has this post about a University of New Hampshire professor and other academics and snowflakes disrupting a free speech forum held by Dave Rubin. The disrupting imbecile professor teaches “Gender, Power, and Privilege,” and “Transgender Feminism,” so it’s no wonder to me that s/he is not able to tolerate hearing the views of others. We rarely hear professors of chemistry and math disrupting these kinds of events, no?

I agree with Prof. Turley that this UNH professor’s behavior is “anti-intellectual” and that the professor “should be disciplined with a minimum of a suspension from teaching and considered for termination for such conduct.” But most of the video features other questioners and disrupters.

I had not heard of Dave Rubin before. Here is the video that Prof. Turley posted of the event (it’s rather long, but Rubin handles disrupters well):

I’m going to try to write about some of the candidates for state-wide office in 2018 USSA Amerika. It’s just really frustrating. Most of them are either communists or fascists. Not many libertarian, freedom-loving individuals at all. But today I will start with Massachusetts (if I can get through this in one piece).

In Massachusetts, Republican Gov. Charlie Baker, America’s “most popular” governor, is up for reelection. He is a squishy Democrat-lite Bill Weld-Gary Johnson liberal Repugnican who believes that “education is a civil right,” and so the government must provide it to kids. Besides the right to education, Baker thinks that transgenders have a right to use opposite-sex bathrooms and showers, so he signed the state-wide bathroom/shower anti-discrimination bill into law, allowing someone who is male to use female bathrooms/showers, and vice versa.

Baker also signed a bill restricting doctors’ authority over their patients’ opioid drug prescriptions, mandating that schools screen students for addiction risk (!), and forcing doctors to have to use a state “Prescription Monitoring Program” database. So much for doctor-patient privacy. And he opposes marijuana legalization. Besides all that “well-meaning” fascism, he also supports using the state police to aid and abet the feds in harassing and deporting innocent immigrants. Sorry, Charlie.

Baker is being challenged in the primary by anti-gay activist pastor Scott Lively, someone who has said and done plenty of controversial things, including his wanting to “criminalize the public advocacy of homosexuality” (including banning “gay pride” parades), and his belief, according to Wikipedia, that “homosexuals [are] the true inventors of Nazism and the guiding force behind many Nazi atrocities.”

Lively received 27% of the delegates votes at the 2018 Republican state convention. So, enough Republican voters in Massachusetts hate Charlie Baker’s guts and are willing to try to oust him with a social-fascist crackpot.

This Lively person presents himself as an ultra-right conservative, but he’s really just another central-planning-obsessed statist. Take his position on education — please. First, he is for a voucher system. His intention is well-meaning, such as promoting “first home-schooling, then private religious and secular community-based day-schools with high parental involvement, then charter schools and lastly government schools.” Apparently, he wants to use vouchers but keep the government’s control over the kids’ education. Why not abolish all government control over education?

But, in response to vouchers, Laurence Vance asked two very important questions (among many others): “Does the fact that some people do not have the money to pay for their preferred education choice justify forcing someone else to pay for it?” And, “Is it the proper role of government to force some Americans to pay for the education of other Americans’ children?”

And second on education, Lively also would “promote a ‘cohort’ approach in which groups of students stay together through all the classes of the core curriculum and operate more like a family.” Huh? But the students aren’t part of a family. What are you, a communist? Melissa Harris-Perry?

And why must the kids stay together in the same classes? Different students achieve and learn at different individual levels. Some are better in math class and some should go to a different class for math, and so on. I think Mr. Lively is trying to use government schools as means for socializing the kids. Not good.

So, more central-planning, social engineering fetish, just like the leftists. Only his agenda (a Biblical one) is different from the leftists.

All this is under the control of the government education system, funded not voluntarily but by taxes, state taxes and/or property taxes confiscated from the people by bureaucrats.

Scott Lively’s economic views are also contradictory. His attempt at promoting entrepreneurship and markets is already confused with his Biblical-communal-collectivism stuff. Lively says that “everything we own and all of the natural resources within our reach were created for our use by God to bless us, and He expects us to be good stewards of them as we fully enjoy them.” So he’s not promoting private property ownership, but to be “good stewards” of God’s resources. He says to “manage our individual and community finances to provide the greatest amount of blessing to the greatest number of people.”

Some of his economic views sound good, like with a lot of “free-market” rhetoric, but then he links to this article from his website, (He capitalizes every word in these paragraphs, how annoying.), in which his idea of a business model sounds anti-capitalist, quite frankly: “Design the Business as an Employee Owned, Profit-Sharing Cooperative Corporation with No More Than Five Salary Tiers, Ensuring that the Highest Paid Employee Earns No More than 5x the Lowest Tier. Team Concept: All Boats Must Rise Together. All for One and One for All.” (Marxist much?) Talk about control-freakishness on steroids.

Unfortunately, the collectivist-communitarian Biblical stuff mixed in with “free-market economics” shows he doesn’t get private property and free markets. He says nothing about dismantling the vast state government bureaucracies, abolishing most of the departments, abolishing the state income tax-theft and the state sales tax-theft, and so on. Nothing.

So, there isn’t much difference between the squishy Gov. Charlie Half-Baker, his Rethug primary opponent Scott Lively, and the two Democrats running, Bob Massie and Jay Gonzalez, who might as well say they are communists. “Free health care, free education, free this and that,” and so on.

Also in Massachusetts, U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a.k.a. Pocahontas (a.k.a. Liawatha) is not being challenged by any other communists Democrats, but there are other candidates.

For instance, among four independent candidates is the most well-known, Indian-American scientist Shiva Ayyadurai, who recently had an issue with the city of Cambridge whose bureaucrats wouldn’t allow him to have a sign on his campaign bus that read, “Only a real Indian can defeat a fake Indian.” Ayyadurai also was known for the “invented email” controversy. Unfortunately he’s another anti-immigration fascist, “Build the wall!” etc. Oh, well.

There are three Republicans running in the primary to challenge Pocahontas. They are typical statists. No libertarians. (Does that matter anyway? Today’s “Libertarian” Party is a train wreck.)

Jacob Hornberger writes about Memorial Day. He points out hard facts that most people probably don’t want to know, that the U.S. soldiers who were killed in wars were actually not killed defending and protecting our rights and freedoms. Iraqis, Afghans, Syrians, Vietnamese, Germans, and Koreans didn’t attack the United States of America. They didn’t threaten to attack Americans. And I’ll add that, in fact, the U.S. government attacked, invaded and bombed those countries, and for no good reason. Hornberger explains with facts how FDR and his administration provoked the Japanese.

Zero Hedge with an article on what a fascist, Soviet-like police state the U.K. has become. An activist who calls himself Tommy Robinson was live streaming outside a courthouse and then arrested and sentenced to 13 months in prison for violating a previous suspended sentence. The gubmint imposed a ban on media reporting about this. Articles about this incident have been deleted from the mainstream Press in fascist U.K., but alternative media still cover it. Theresa May is the current ruling tyrant. These people are awful. (Unfortunately, this is the kind of crap that authoritarian Donald Trump aspires to.)

And in Orwellian Philadelphia, a school district is ordering students to have to smile in the hallways. “‘If you don’t (smile) you get called to the office or down to see your guidance counselor … You have to talk about your problems then. You have to or you get detention’.” (They must be getting their Nazi-like influence from England. You vill smile, and that’s an order!)

In my post about overreaction and hysteria, I wrote about the Boston Globe‘s editor Brian McGrory who a former Globe employee is accusing of sending her inappropriate “sext-type texts,” or otherwise misconduct of a sexual nature. In a text responding to her questions on writing, he asked her, “What do you generally wear when you write?” (That sounds like a “just kidding” kind of thing to me, no?)

So, she’s publicly accusing him of stuff, and the Globe is investigating. Now the Globe is suing the former employee for more information on the text to see if those texts occurred while she was still their employee, and Brian McGrory may sue her for what his lawyer says are “defamatory” tweets about his alleged inappropriate tweets, and “falsely suggesting that Mr. McGrory had engaged in workplace sexual harassment,” according to CBS Boston.

Apparently, the two actually dated in the past, and she was never under his supervision as a Globe employee. This whole thing is just nutso.

Meanwhile, Morgan Freeman responds to accusations that he has acted inappropriately toward women, and he says, “All victims of assault and harassment deserve to be heard…But it is not right to equate horrific incidents of sexual assault with misplaced compliments or humor.”

Thanks to government-controlled education in Amerika, I think a lot of people are having a hard time really understanding what actually would be “inappropriate” in texts, emails, on the phone and in person. People’s judgment is not clear now. And unfortunately, there are people who don’t seem to be able to see the difference between physical invasiveness or coercion (like with Bill Cosby and allegedly Harvey Weinstein) and someone merely being or attempting to be humorous, especially verbally.

Speaking of the Boston Globe, one of its columnists, Renée Graham, didn’t like jazz- and classical-trumpeter Wynton Marsalis’s recent comments about hip-hop and rap, and who said that we shouldn’t have “music talking about n****** and bitches and hoes,” and that as far as rap and hip-hop, “I feel that that’s much more of a racial issue than taking Robert E. Lee’s statue down.”

In her recent column, Graham wrote, “It’s another manifestation of the divisive respectability politics fostered by self-appointed cultural gatekeepers who scold black people for not behaving the ‘right’ way. And ‘right’ usually means whatever curries approval from a majority of white people.” And, “He should know that black respectability means nothing to white supremacists.” And, “Racists don’t care whether African-Americans can play a trumpet concerto or freestyle a rhyme.”

Really, Ms. Graham? And why should we care what racists care about anyway? She’s making it sound like what racists think actually matters in any way whatsoever. And does she really believe that “‘right’ usually means whatever curries approval from a majority of white people”? Black people can’t condemn other black people for rapping about “bitches and hoes” constantly, and calling others n******? Condemning the rap gutter language is “acting white” to those who are brainwashed to believe such nonsense.

Speaking of nonsense, in Florida Parkman high school shooting “survivor” David Camera Hogg (as Rush Limbaugh rightfully calls him) staged a mass “die-in” at several Publix grocery stores, to protest the company’s contributions to anti-gun-control candidates. So Publix now says it will no longer make political contributions. That’ll teach them, Hogg.

If it were my business I’d have told them to leave the premises or they’d be arrested and charged with trespassing and being a public nuisance. And if they didn’t leave, they would be arrested and charged with trespassing and being a public nuisance. I know, it’s the government police I’d be calling, but who else at this time of security monopolization by government would protect me from these ignorant morons (driving away customers), these dangerous fascists who naively believe that disarming innocent people and making them defenseless would make would-be shooters decide not to go do their shooting? Again, thanks to the government schools themselves, people really think that way.

11th Circuit Judge William Pryor, who has been on Donald Trump’s list for possible Supreme Court justice, has once again reminded us that Trump’s appointing Neil Gorsuch was a much better choice (albeit not the best one).

According to Reason, “Pryor came out firmly in defense of every state’s unbridled power to incarcerate consenting adults for the supposed crime of having same-sex relations in the privacy of their own homes. ‘The States can and must legislate morality.’ To rule otherwise, Pryor’s brief declared, would be to enshrine a ‘sophomoric libertarian mantra’.”

Reason noted that Pryor believes in judicial deference, in which judges ought to defer to government bureaucrats’ authority and judgment (i.e. he’s a fascist, not a protector of the people, not a supporter of liberty).

We see no reason why the Fourth Amendment would require suspicion for a forensic search of an electronic device when it imposes no such requirement for a search of other personal property. Just as the United States is entitled to search a fuel tank for drugs, see Flores-Montano, 541 U.S. at 155, it is entitled to search a flash drive for child pornography.

The “United States is entitled”? Yech. Just let the government go on a fishing expedition for child pornography? Even if you don’t suspect someone specific of committing some specific, actual crime?

He is saying that the Fourth Amendment does not require suspicion for searching “personal property”?

The Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

What do you think “persons, houses, papers, and effects” are?

Pryor also writes in this latest bad decision: “Although it may intrude on the privacy of the owner, a forensic search of an electronic device is a search of property. And our precedents do not require suspicion for intrusive searches of any property at the border.”

It doesn’t matter whether it’s at the border, within the border, or wherever. The Fourth Amendment is referring to the “right of the people to be secure…,” the right to be free of intrusions or aggressions into one’s person or effects, etc., which is a part of the people’s natural rights, their unalienable rights to life and liberty as referenced in the Declaration of Independence. The “right of the people to be secure” is not a right that has been granted to us by the government.

Judge Pryor, and all the other authoritarian judicial crackpots out there, need to reread the Declaration of Independence, which states:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

There is so much hysteria and overreaction to events in today’s America, to shootings and just someone merely making comments, I don’t know where to begin.

In response to the latest school shooting, this time in Sante Fe, Texas, there are more school lockdowns and disruptions for no good reason.

In the old days, when there was a bomb scare or false fire alarm in school, we all went outside to stand out there, the police and/or fire department searched the school, and when they gave the all clear we all went back in. No panic. No hysteria.

And I have mentioned in the past that also in the old days kids had guns and brought them to school, for show-and-tell, to carry with them, put in their cars (if they had a car), or whatever. And no one thought anything of it. No big deal. And there were no school shootings! But things have changed since the good old days.

Could it be the psychiatric drugs, as I have observed many times now? The reason that many people don’t know that most of these mass shooters have been on those psychiatric drugs (antidepressants, anti-anxiety, etc.) is because the mainstream media don’t report those aspects of those stories, because some of their big sponsors are the pharmaceutical companies.

Anyway, just this week, there are hysterical things going on now, because of the epidemic of irrationality in the schools and elsewhere.

In Cedar Rapids, Iowa, “Wilson Middle School in Cedar Rapids went into a full lockdown as students huddled in corners and teachers blocked doors,” according to KCRG.

What happened? KCRG reports that “it turned out to be nothing more than an unsubstantiated rumor according to a letter the school district sent to parents.” Neither the article nor the included news video explains what the rumor was. But the whole school day was interrupted, and parents came to get their kids, obviously disrupting the parents’ workday.

In Lewiston, Maine, a high school was placed in lockdown because an adult reported hearing two teens say some “disturbing things,” according to WGME.

You know, I could write a book on all the “disturbing things” I heard other students say while I was in high school. But there were no lockdowns, and people didn’t overreact to things.

“Lewiston police advised putting the high school on lockdown, after an adult came forward saying they heard part of a conversation from two young people off campus, saying things that could be interpreted as a threat.” (Great news-writers these days, with the mixing of singular and plural pronouns, as Becky Akers might say.)

But exactly what were those “disturbing things” uttered?

Right now, investigators are trying to identify and locate the teens, so they can figure out exactly what they were talking about.

Police say it could be something as simple as two teens talking about Friday’s deadly school shooting in Texas.

“But given the climate of today’s world and the school being hyper vigilant, and they should be, we want to protect our students,” St. Pierre said. “We want to protect the staff.”

Police say the witness heard no direct threats toward anyone at the high school, so they lifted the lockdown by noon

“But given the climate of today’s world…” You mean the climate of hysteria and irrationality?

“No direct threats…” Doh!

In Coweta County, Georgia, “a man with a gun was seen walking near the high school,” so they had to be put on lockdown, according to the Atlanta Journal Constitution. (Maybe it was a police officer on patrol?) I thought Georgia was a big gun-rights, gun-loving state. Why are they so frightened of a man with a gun?

We never had a “lockdown” when I was in school. But that was when people were less irrational and hysterical, and there was more common sense back then.

But besides the hysterical school sheeple, the hysteria and overreaction is also occurring in the # “Me Too” movement. Fragile snowflakes are now complaining against innocent people just for making some dumb remark, or some other imagined “offense.”

For instance, a female former Boston Globe employee has openly complained against Globe editor Brian McGrory, nephew of the late newspaper journalist Mary McGrory (not that that means anything).

The former Globe employee, Hilary Sargent, accuses Brian McGrory of sending her a “sext-type text.”

“People are struggling to make sense out of what happened, how serious it is and what the Globe should do about it,” said Northeastern University journalism professor Dan Kennedy, according to WGBH.

And what exactly are people hysterically “struggling to make sense out of”?

The alleged text conversation was as follows:

Former Globe employee: I can only write within a draft.

McGrory: Meaning?

Former Globe employee: I imagine there are people who can sit down and with enough time just write something

But I need a draft and then a day and then I’ll add something and then a day and so on

I need time but only time if i start with a draft

McGrory: Got it. What do you generally wear when you write?

Former Globe employee: Seriously?

McGrory: Well, not entirely.

Former Globe employee: Well I don’t generally write.

McGrory: Oh.

Huh? What the hell is she saying, “a draft and a day and time” I guess she needs more time to work on her writing?

And after his dumb comment, “What do you generally wear when you write?” she writes, “Seriously?” and he responds by saying “Well, not entirely,” i.e. “I’m just kidding around, being facetious, etc,” is my interpretation. Am I alone in that? You know, an innocent yet perhaps moronic remark.

So that stupid little text thing, which isn’t “sexting,” by the way, is causing all the commotion at the Boston Globe and other media. And for no good reason, because now all the real harassers in the news have reinforced hysterical society’s overreaction to every little thing a male person might say or write.

Another example is a Harvard economics professor, Roland Fryer Jr, who is “alleged to have discussed sex often at work, sexualized female workers, and created a demeaning workplace, according to the Globe. However,

Some EdLabs workers said that while Fryer was a demanding boss, they disputed complaints that the environment was toxic or demeaning.

Tanaya Devi, who is earning her doctoral degree in economics at Harvard and has worked with Fryer for five years, said she never witnessed any conversations that were misogynistic, or verbally sexually harassing.

Devi, who is coauthoring two papers with Fryer, said he has been supportive and has encouraged her interest in race and crime, a topic that few female economists pursue.

I have a feeling the accuser just may be an overly fragile snowflake who has been conditioned to overreact to every little thing, every little word someone might say.

So, we now live in a hysterical society. Can that be reversed, please?

Laurence Vance has a great article on today, Why not let six-year-olds vote? He is responding to Michelle Blackwell and Michel Martin’s advocacy for lowering the voting age to 16.

Dr. Vance writes:

I have a better idea than letting sixteen-year-olds vote. Why not let six-year-olds vote? By that age they are able to sign a voter registration form and read and mark an election ballot. Why not let them vote? What possible difference could it make? Consider the following.

We have a two-party system that gives us a choice at every election of voting for Tweedledum or Tweedledee, of voting for socialist A or fascist B, or of voting for the red or the blue welfare/warfare statist. There is not a dime’s worth of difference between the two major parties. The system is rigged so that third parties don’t have a chance. And even if they did, how would that help? In the last presidential election, the Libertarian Party nominated two men for president and vice president who were the most unlibertarian candidates in the Party’s history.

Once in office, politicians of either party seek to do the same things: take our money, redistribute our money, increase the size, scope, and power of government, meddle in the economy and society, tell us what we can’t do, tell us how to live our life, and, of course, get reelected.

The federal budget is over $4 trillion a year, the budget deficit is over $1 trillion a year, the national debt is over $21 trillion, and Americans live in a vast welfare/warfare/police state. Things get worse every year even though there are more Republicans in office at the federal, state, and local levels than at any time since Reconstruction. What possible difference could it make who gets elected to office or who votes for them?

It would be very difficult for an honest person to be able to refute those points, in my view. Dr. Vance is just pointing out the reality of our “democracy.”

This is positively stunning. It is some kind of U.S. globalist corporate control that has never before been attempted by any president.

President Donald Trump will lift a ban on American firms selling to Chinese telecom giant ZTE, according to the Wall Street Journal. But here is the kicker, Trump will lift the ban only after forcing ZTE to make big changes in its management and board seats, along with potentially paying fines.

The Commerce Department last month banned U.S. companies from selling to ZTE because it failed to comply with its agreement with the U.S. government after violating sanctions against trade with Iran and North Korea.

And so corporate leaders IN CHINA who defy U.S. sanctions by conducting free trade with Iran and North Korea must go because they have defied the U.S. government. Only then will the U.S. president allow trade between the company and the U.S. entities to resume.

This will send a chilling signal to all major international corporate officials: Attempt free trade with countries that the United States has put on a blacklist and you may lose your corporate position as part of a deal to continue trade with the U.S.

Wow. This makes Trump a global corporate trade monster the likes of which we have never seen before.

Justin Raimondo discusses the outed FBI spy in the Trump campaign. The U.K. is not trustworthy. (Why do you think we separated from them many years ago?) And Adam Schiff continues to deny the allegation of a spy in the Trump campaign. It used to be that Democrats were anti-FBI/CIA/Etc. Now they love those agencies.